United States Policy toward Iran: Michael A. Ledeen ~ TESTIMONY before House Int Relations Cmmt

American Enterprise Institute ^ | Wednesday, March 8, 2006 | Dr. Michael A. Ledeen

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Very powerful Testimony!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Ledeen was a member of a panel of 5 at the March 7 Oversight hearing before the Oversight Hearing before the Rep Henry Hyde hearing:

*********************************************

Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Henry J. Hyde, Chairman
CONTACT: Sam Stratman, (202) 226-7875, March 7, 2006

For IMMEDIATE Release

U.S. Policy & Iran: Next Steps
Hyde Schedules Wednesday Oversight Hearing

BACKGROUND - Iran presents one of the most difficult security challenges confronting the international community. Should Iran’s clerical regime acquire nuclear weapons, as is its evident aim, it would be able to threaten the energy fields of the Arab countries of the Gulf and close the Straits of Hormuz, through which flows much of the world’s energy supply. Inevitably, regional powers such as Saudi Arabia will seek nuclear weapons of their own so that they will not have to rely on others to secure their survival. Because of Iran’s economic importance, it has thus far proven difficult to isolate or pressure successfully.  Japan, for example, derives fifteen percent of its energy from Iran and fully ninety percent of its energy from the Middle East.  What should a Japanese political leader do if that country is asked to cut itself off from Iranian oil?  Because of Iran’s size and military capacity, it is hard to coerce militarily – and it may prove to be exceedingly difficult to disable its nuclear assets.  Any attempt to do so is likely to strengthen the most retrograde political forces there. Iran’s leaders know all this, which may be why they have continued to defy the world, breaking agreements and ignoring international standards of behavior. Iran’s internal politics are dominated by a clerical clique that holds power by force but which also enjoys the active support of a strong minority of the Iranian population and the passive support of a larger share.  Iranian nationalist sentiment can be stirred up easily.  At the same time, the United States is popular in Iran – not least because we clearly oppose that regime and support the Iranian people’s true aspirations for peace and economic progress.  The Administration has begun reaching out even more strongly and has proposed a $75 million public diplomacy program in the Fiscal Year 2006 Supplemental budget now under consideration. The Administration’s approach to Iran in earlier years lacked focus, but, during the past year, it has found its footing and concentrated on a diplomatic strategy that has borne fruit – not in the sense that Iran has been convinced to change its behavior but in the sense that the world community is more united than ever on the proposition that Iran must change. 

WHAT:                             Oversight Hearing:
                                          United States Policy Toward Iran - Next Steps

WHEN:                             10 a.m., Wednesday, March 8, 2006

WHERE:                           2172 Rayburn House Office Building

WITNESSES:                    Panel I:
                                           The Honorable Nicholas Burns,
                                           Under Secretary for Political Affairs,
                                           U.S. Department of State; and

                                           The Honorable Robert Joseph,
                                           Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security,
                                           U.S. Department of State;

                                           Panel II:
                                           John C. Hulsman, Ph.D.,
                                           The Heritage Foundation;

                                           Michael A. Ledeen, Ph.D.,
                                           The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research;

                                           Gary Milhollin,
                                           Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control; and

                                           Abbas William Samii, Ph.D.,
                                           Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Back to Press Page      Home

[Edgerunner]

Yes, the Iranians are invincible. We should face reality and immediately surrender...

[Alberta's Child]

Dear Mr. Ledeen:

I think it's long past time for the U.S. to stop relying on think-tank jack@sses for their advice in matters related to foreign policy and military force. But thanks for your input anyway.

Sincerely,

Alberta's Child

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

These comments are interesting:

"The pessimism is as bizarre as it is discouraging. We empowered a successful revolution in the Soviet Empire with the active support of a very small percentage of the population. How hard can it be for a revolution to succeed in Iran, where more than 70% of the people want it? Our experience with Soviet Communism suggests that revolution can triumph under harsh repression, and that there are often dynamic democratic revolutionaries even if we cannot always see them. Indeed, I suspect that in Iran there are many potential leaders, some of whom are in prison while others are underground. I also suspect that there has been a lot of planning, both for the revolution itself, and for the shape of the free society thereafter. This was the case in many of the Soviet satellites--Poland and Czechoslovakia being prime examples--and is certainly ongoing in the Iranian diaspora, whether in the United States or in Europe. It would be surprising if Iranian democrats were not doing the same."

Take a page from Ronald Reagan's book during the 80s. Just Do it.

[Alberta's Child]

How hard can it be for a revolution to succeed in Iran, where more than 70% of the people want it?

This is one of the morons who said the U.S. would be welcomed into Iraq with open arms by people who would see us as liberators.

He's got about as much credibility on U.S. policy in the Middle East as Cindy Sheehan. It baffles me to know end to see so many supposedly intelligent people in this country who are willing to accept the assertions of some Beltway @sshole at face value.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

He got challenged in the hearing by others......

Administration is moving very deliberately on Iran.... The hearing is a must see, things are coming into perspective...

Blog to read:

Words have consequences

***********************************

Over at Jewish Current Issues, Rick Richman picks up on John's discussion of the thread of Vice President Cheney's speech devoted to Iran: "Words have consequences." Rick places Cheney's speech in the context of other administration statements on the subject. Rick suggests that the administration's statements are more than tough talk: "A marker has been laid down, indicating that this issue is going to be resolved -- by one means or another."

Rick's words put me in mind of Lincoln's great "house divided" speech:

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

Harry Jaffa argues powerfully that Lincoln's "house divided" speech is "The speech that changed the world."

It seems that we are reaching a crisis with Iran. Iran is the point from which the forces destabilizing the Middle East and threatening the United States are radiating. They will not cease until a crisis is reached and passed. For additional evidence today, see Thomas Joscelyn's Standard column "Unholy alliance." See also Alexandra von Maltzan's "Iran is building a nuclear weapon." (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for the tip to Joscelyn.)

UPDATE: The American Enterprise Institute has posted Michael Ledeen's must-read testimony to to House Committee on International Relations yesterday. An excerpt:

***********************************

I started this thread with the full text from Ledeen.....

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for ping a ro. Obviously a lot to wade through on this one.

[Alberta's Child]

From the first hours of the fanatical regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, Iran declared war on us in language it seems impossible to misunderstand.

I'm guessing that Ledeen has deliberately left out the first 25+ years of this "war" -- which basically began when the Eisenhower supported the overthrow of the duly-elected Mossadegh government of Iran back in 1953. I can understand why a typical American who doesn't know any better would think that in 1979 Iran suddenly decided that the U.S. was their enemy, but when this kind of crap is uttered by a guy who is supposed to be a "Middle East expert" there is no doubt in my mind that it is a deliberate deception.

[Alberta's Child]

Correction -- make that ". . . the Eisenhower administration . . ."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Tons....just posted this piece of the puzzle:

Vice President's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference

We need to have a lot of eyes on any replays of the House Hearings....particularly the Remarks by Burns and Joseph.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So Iran is justified in their approach?

[Alberta's Child]

I didn't say that.

I have no idea if Iran is "justified in their approach" or not. But I do know that it makes no difference to me if the Congressional testimony documented here was given by Michael Ledeen or by Ronald McDonald. He is a thoroughly discredited "expert" on anything related to the Middle East, and as such his opinions are suspect in my mind regardless of whether they are correct or not.

[Marine_Uncle]

To a very large degree I have to take AC's view on this. Quite frankly, I read nothing that has not been discussed over and over again for many years. His solution for regiem change is quite shallow. Unlike say NK, whom is very isolated, totally dependend on the world to feed it, Iran is very oil rich and not isolated. It is located geographically in an extremly strategic area. Iranian's are not going to attempt to take on the military and secret police. They like any dictatorship only take action after a strong liberator come in and crush the oppressing rulers and obedient military assets.
Sadly the EU need oil, and to varying degrees, say the Iranian pot to Germany may be around 15-20%. The Saudi, Nigerains, Sudan, Libya, South America cannot simply make up the raw supply of oil if Iran where to be shut down.
It just is not that easy. Oil/Gas demands are as we all know at a peak demand world wide. And the Iranians supply at least 10% to the world markets.
The world economies are fragil in nature, so much depending on the individual parts contributions.
And the only way to shut down Iran is to do one hell of a job on them. Literally take everything oil/gas related out.
It would have to be approved by the UN in the way of sanctions just like in Iraq's case. And we know where that leads. All key players other then Russia depend on oil importation to a great degree. And the Mullah know this.
At any rate. The articles brought up nothing new. At least for me. We simply rehash over again the same things.
And the military solution means pre-emptive total decimation of the Iranian infrastructure regarding oil/gas, which then brings up the issue, as how those supposed Iranians that like the US, for instance, will then feel.
For those that would suggest we totally take out Iran, e.g. nuke, and conventionally obliterate their populations centers, factories, in short everything above ground which has to include killing millions of people to destroy the industrial complex, then send in appropriate land forces to literally destroy all located in deep bunkers (NUKE PROOF), in conventianal means, presents a little problem as some might surmize.

[Alberta's Child]

Good post. Thanks!

I suspect that the phrase "regime change" has its origins in some inside-the-Beltway think tank . . . by over-educated quasi-Marxists from New York City who have never had real jobs in their lives and who would convert to Islam before they'd ever dream of putting on a military uniform.

[shield]

If Americans really realized most of the tragic events against Americans state side and non state side has been the Iranians...they'd be be shocked...

[sono]

You might, therefore, endorse the Hitchens Approach. The elephant in the room, however, still remains the Messianic Mahmoud's Nuclear Vision. How does the world deal with nuclear weapons for one who views "Mutual Assured Destruction" as a ticket to paradise.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well, you guys need to see the video replay of the hearings, especially of Burns.....

With troops on each side of Iran, we are gonna put them in a headlock , stir up anything we can among their young folks,.... but not take the Military option off the table.

This isn't gonna make the Nuke em now till they glow ...crowd happy....

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Like, Iraq, Iran's people would welcome the change in their leaders, however enough of the people would resent a foreign country doing it for them.

[Marine_Uncle]

Your rather whimsical evaluation provides a moment of LOL, but as you wrote I am sure you realized regiem change has a rather long history. As for the think tanks, quite a few general officers grace their hallways and offices. And again, I do not rebut, because some of them have their heads up their butts.